Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

[DeletedUser40604]

A proposal has already been submitted.

Guild BattleGrounds "Log" Enhancement

Proposal: The Guild Battleground log should include a list of sectors attacked and the guild members names doing the attacking. . Current System: Currently the log only shows things like Special bldgs. constructed, Lost sectors, Conquered sectors etc. Details: Knowing who in your guild is...

forum.us.forgeofempires.com

Thanks, that answers my concerns, logical response thank you

 

[DeletedUser36572]

It's not for myself it's for everyone. What's this enemy logistics point going now ? Managing 5 ppl guild and managing 80 is not same. Without better way to visualize data small guilds are having clear upper hand gathering better idea about their Players. Because small list is manually manageable and could be visualize better unlike a huge population.

Of course it is different managing 80 people and 5 people ... Just like it is different having the resources of 80 people versus 5 people.

What you want is Guilds with 80 people, and with all the resources those people can provide, then get the game to manage the fact they are biting off more than they can chew.

You aren’t trying to help everyone ... You are trying to handicap the system to accommodate Guilds that have more than they can handle.

It’s cool though, there are probably more people that like the idea ... And I am just one person.

Not Anyone Else’s Fault

.

 

[Algona]

Of course it is different managing 80 people and 5 people ... Just like it is different having the resources of 80 people versus 5 people.

I am not saying logistics would be easy for a Guild with 80 people ... I am saying that it isn’t the obligation of a Guild with 5 people to accommodate a guild with more resources and more people.

What you want is 80 people, all they have to offer, and the game to manage the fact you are biting off more than you can chew.

Not Anyone Else’s Fault

.

While I agree with you re logs, please, just give it a rest. Please?

The debate has been going on in this thread and across the forum for months, all the points pro and con have been hashed out repeatedly, the Proposal submitted, and either INNO will or will not add logs.

Alwasy look on the bright side of life! Until (IF!) INNO does implement logs all the folks who want logs will keep having the problems that makes them want logs.

 

[DeletedUser40604]

Of course it is different managing 80 people and 5 people ... Just like it is different having the resources of 80 people versus 5 people.

I am not saying logistics would be easy for a Guild with 80 people ... I am saying that it isn’t the obligation of a Guild with 5 people to accommodate a guild with more resources and more people.

What you want is 80 people, all they have to offer, and the game to manage the fact you are biting off more than you can chew.

Not Anyone Else’s Fault

.

Nobody is accommodating nobody. Different ability guilds are playing seperately. All company works with their own data managed in well formatted way. That's why it's a company. In a battlefield where did you saw troops are going with " fire at will" mode every often ? See what point you're making.
It's a strategy game and my points are for strategy.
Guilds should have tool.if u don't like switch to other guilds who does not excersize those power, who hold you back?
Freedom should be either way. Guild can have freedom to choose enact it's power on the other hand ppl can leave that guild if they hate that control. Be even think even , think from all side don't be individualist but also think from a collaborator's perspective

 

[DeletedUser36572]

Different ability guilds are playing seperately.

Currently ... The only difference is what League a Guild is in.

Number of members doesn’t make a difference unless the game thinks 1 person and 43 people are the same ability level.

Maybe That 1 Person
Is That Good

.

 

[DeletedUser40604]

While I agree with you re logs, please, just give it a rest. Please?

The debate has been going on in this thread and across the forum for months, all the points pro and con have been hashed out repeatedly, the Proposal submitted, and either INNO will or will not add logs.

Alwasy look on the bright side of life! Until (IF!) INNO does implement logs all the folks who want logs will keep having the problems that makes them want logs.

Currently ... The only difference is what League a Guild is in.

Number of members doesn’t make a difference unless the game thinks 1 person and 43 people are the same ability level.

Maybe That 1 Person
Is That Good

.

That could be another proposal to keep it like GE
1person to be equal to 43 needs that 1 person be a millionaire

 

[DeletedUser36572]

That could be another proposal to keep it like GE
1person to be equal to 43 needs that 1 person a millionaire

I didn’t make the numbers up and there are 19 players in the guild with 43 people that have more Prestige Points than the 1 Person.

But ... I am not complaining, or going to ask the developers to put the fix in ... I am beating them anyway.

Whoops

.

 

[DeletedUser40604]

I didn’t make the numbers up and there are 19 players in the guild with 43 people that have more Prestige Points than the 1 Person.

But ... I am not complaining, or going to ask the developers to put the fix in ... I am beating them anyway.

Whoops

.

It's not about complaint it's feedback, both are different. One is negative another's positive. Development has a integral part of bug fixing , part of the job and also as a product INNO has a responsibility of customer satisfaction. All organization do this and that's why they take feedback. It's user's feedback.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

It's not about complaint it's feedback, both are different. One is negative another's positive. Development has a integral part of bug fixing , part of the job and also as a product INNO has a responsibility of customer satisfaction. All organization do this and that's why they take feedback. It's user's feedback.

Thanks for the insightful information.
I had no idea what would satisfy me as a customer, nor the slightest clue about corporate operations, product quality, corrective action and compliance, as well as follow-up.

Have A Lovely Evening

.

 

[DeletedUser]

Really I think since gbg cost guild goods

Only putting buildings in sectors costs guild goods. Attacking and/or negotiating costs the guild nothing, which is why the guild leaders should not have the right/ability to stop members from attacking/negotiating. In GvG, sieges cost guild goods, but not in GBG. And guild leaders in GBG already have the right to control where/when buildings are put up, which makes the game consistent. Inno gives guild leaders the right to control where/when guild goods are spent, it never gives guild leaders the ability to stop their members from playing when they are using their own goods/units.

 

[DeletedUser40604]

Only putting buildings in sectors costs guild goods. Attacking and/or negotiating costs the guild nothing, which is why the guild leaders should not have the right/ability to stop members from attacking/negotiating. In GvG, sieges cost guild goods, but not in GBG. And guild leaders in GBG already have the right to control where/when buildings are put up, which makes the game consistent. Inno gives guild leaders the right to control where/when guild goods are spent, it never gives guild leaders the ability to stop their members from playing when they are using their own goods/units.

Yes I know this logic and so here comes my option to enable leaders to see the activity details.
So all should have freedom to choose. Members does not like the guild can leave, leaders does not like the members can also leave them.
But I can put other points as from battlefield perspective and if one is captain and lead team in a Battle to keep the battle oriented in proper direction a plan should be made. It's valid strategy for all battle game and real life battle.
So that guild goods excuse is not good enough for the sake of how the war really being carried out.
I understand guild goods expenses are not here but a disoriented battle has no meaning. They can then remove the entire guild concept and ppl fight their own battle alone or else they keep guilds and remove the battle feature.
This would be logical

 

[BruteForceAttack]

Yes I know this logic and so here comes my option to enable leaders to see the activity details.
So all should have freedom to choose. Members does not like the guild can leave, leaders does not like the members can also leave them.
But I can put other points as from battlefield perspective and if one is captain and lead team in a Battle to keep the battle oriented in proper direction a plan should be made. It's valid strategy for all battle game and real life battle.
So that guild goods excuse is not good enough for the sake of how the war really being carried out.
I understand guild goods expenses are not here but a disoriented battle has no meaning. They can then remove the entire guild concept and ppl fight their own battle alone or else they keep guilds and remove the battle feature.
This would be logical

For some reason Inno called this Guild battle ground and not player battle ground...it is as simple as that...A guild should and will be able to do whatever they want...if you dont like the guild find the leave guild button and start your own guild

 

[Agent327]

It's not for myself it's for everyone. What's this enemy logistics point going now ? Managing 5 ppl guild and managing 80 is not same. Without better way to visualize data small guilds are having clear upper hand gathering better idea about their Players. Because small list is manually manageable and could be visualize better unlike a huge population.

If 80 is to much for you to manage, start trimming.

So what if small guilds are better managable. They can face much bigger guilds with much more fighters. You would not allow them a little advantage?

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes I know this logic and so here comes my option to enable leaders to see the activity details.
So all should have freedom to choose. Members does not like the guild can leave, leaders does not like the members can also leave them.
But I can put other points as from battlefield perspective and if one is captain and lead team in a Battle to keep the battle oriented in proper direction a plan should be made. It's valid strategy for all battle game and real life battle.
So that guild goods excuse is not good enough for the sake of how the war really being carried out.
I understand guild goods expenses are not here but a disoriented battle has no meaning. They can then remove the entire guild concept and ppl fight their own battle alone or else they keep guilds and remove the battle feature.
This would be logical

If you would read back through the pages of this thread, you would see that all your points have already been posted by other players over and over. And I'm not going to argue them all again. Suffice it to say that there are a significant number of players here that are diametrically opposed to bringing the GvG "total guild control" mindset into GBG. And since Inno got all the same feedback throughout the Beta phase and did nothing about adding more guild controls, it seems to me that they want GBG to be different from GvG, too.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

For some reason Inno called this Guild battle ground and not player battle ground...it is as simple as that...A guild should and will be able to do whatever they want...if you don't like the guild find the leave guild button and start your own guild

This is a completely asinine statement that adds nothing to these already weak arguments.

Guilds are made up of players. End of story. If you want a guild where every member follows the exact will and dictates of the leader, you're free to create a one person guild. However, if you want to be able to access and utilize the resources of others to put up more advances, hold more provinces, build more province buildings, to achieve higher leagues, and access bigger rewards, then you need to do it with the control structure you have now.

You, as a leader, can suggest, encourage, plead, and cajole me to place my advances where you want them, but I, as a member, retain all my rights and autonomy as to where, when, and how I place them. Once I've given my goods to the guild, they're no longer mine and you as a leader can spend them as you wish. In ways I may agree with, and in ways I may not. Like taxes, I'm forced to pay whether I like it or not, and whether or not I agree with how those tax dollars are subsequently used.

What you want, is not only the ability to use my guild contributions how you see fit, you also want to the ability to control where, when, and how I spend my personal resources. You now want the ability to force me to spend my personal resources only on your approved goods and services, bought only in your approved stores. You want the Mark of the Beast. 'That no player might advance or earn rewards, save those that had been approved by the founder, was the founder, or given the authority of the founder's name.'

Do what you want with my taxes. Set whatever speed limits you want, wherever you want. Post all the speed limit signs you want. Educate me why it's in my best interest for me to comply with the posted speed limits. Enforce those speed limits as needed when you can spot and prove a violation beyond the shadow of a doubt. But in the end, it's still up to me to comply, or not.

I've simply no interest in supporting, much less voting in, your camera on every corner, Alexa in every living room, recording everything you do world. Your comply or face the wrath of the no one voted for you, 'President for Life'. Your 'voluntarily' comply, or face total complete and total exile world.

Here's an idea, You can have detailed logs when guild members are given the tools to vote the current tyrant out of office in favor of a new tyrant of our choosing. A mechanism where members can give a vote of 'no confidence', dissolve Parliament, remove the current leadership, and vote in some new leaders. A mechanism that lets members decide who should, or should not be given, what, if any leadership rights.

If I can't have a check and balance, to your already unrestrained power, you can't have more of it. Without the ability to toss your ass when you become one, I don't want you even having access to more information, giving you more power, to enact and enforce more control.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

...

But I can put other points as from battlefield perspective and if one is captain and lead team in a Battle to keep the battle oriented in proper direction a plan should be made. It's valid strategy for all battle game and real life battle.

...

Where your points are understandable, and partially valid, they lack one key component.

A plan and mission objective are paramount as a starting point, but in real battle, trust in your command, your soldiers, and their ability to quickly adapt to the changes on the battlefield in real time, are most often the keys to victory.

If everyone starts worrying about leaving or booting people out ... Or locking everything down ... It just becomes another top-heavy bureaucracy and not an effective war machine.

Edit:
That trust, and all the logistics necessary to access and execute a successful campaign, are developed and implemented within the organization, long before you make the choice to jeopardize resources or send assets into combat. Without them, you’re a “Cluster” and deserve the beating you get.

Perhaps if someone leads a Guild that is having difficulties establishing even the most basic practices that lead to a successful campaign, it would be better if they viewed the next few Seasons of Battlegrounds as Training Sessions, with limited exposure to resource loss on the individual or Guild level. You may actually learn how to use your enemies’ weakness as an advantage.

Pfft ... Mouse Commandos

.

 

[DeletedUser14197]

This is a completely asinine statement that adds nothing to these already weak arguments.

Guilds are made up of players. End of story. If you want a guild where every member follows the exact will and dictates of the leader, you're free to create a one person guild. However, if you want to be able to access and utilize the resources of others to put up more advances, hold more provinces, build more province buildings, to achieve higher leagues, and access bigger rewards, then you need to do it with the control structure you have now.

You, as a leader, can suggest, encourage, plead, and cajole me to place my advances where you want them, but I, as a member, retain all my rights and autonomy as to where, when, and how I place them. Once I've given my goods to the guild, they're no longer mine and you as a leader can spend them as you wish. In ways I may agree with, and in ways I may not. Like taxes, I'm forced to pay whether I like it or not, and whether or not I agree with how those tax dollars are subsequently used.

What you want, is not only the ability to use my guild contributions how you see fit, you also want to the ability to control where, when, and how I spend my personal resources. You now want the ability to force me to spend my personal resources only on your approved goods and services, bought only in your approved stores. You want the Mark of the Beast. 'That no player might advance or earn rewards, save those that had been approved by the founder, was the founder, or given the authority of the founder's name.'

Do what you want with my taxes. Set whatever speed limits you want, wherever you want. Post all the speed limit signs you want. Educate me why it's in my best interest for me to comply with the posted speed limits. Enforce those speed limits as needed when you can spot and prove a violation beyond the shadow of a doubt. But in the end, it's still up to me to comply, or not.

I've simply no interest in supporting, much less voting in, your camera on every corner, Alexa in every living room, recording everything you do world. Your comply or face the wrath of the no one voted for you, 'President for Life'. Your 'voluntarily' comply, or face total complete and total exile world.

Here's an idea, You can have detailed logs when guild members are given the tools to vote the current tyrant out of office in favor of a new tyrant of our choosing. A mechanism where members can give a vote of 'no confidence', dissolve Parliament, remove the current leadership, and vote in some new leaders. A mechanism that lets members decide who should, or should not be given, what, if any leadership rights.

If I can't have a check and balance, to your already unrestrained power, you can't have more of it. Without the ability to toss your ass when you become one, I don't want you even having access to more information, giving you more power, to enact and enforce more control.

Why would you stay in a guild that you view the leaders as tyrants. Leave it and start your own. Why should any one be able to vote the leaders out and take over a guild. The ones who started the guild should maintain control. It is their guild. People can vote by leaving the guild. If they lose enough members they will be more likely to make changes. With all the guilds available find one you agree with. If you can't start your own. Why make trouble for a guild simply because you joined one you don't like the leadership in. Join one like mine. No rules. Pretty much lack of any leadership guidance but only silver or gold league. I would assume if I decided to join a guild so I could be in a higher league that I might need to follow their plans. See you can choose which guild gets your taxes. A guild is not the same thing as a country. Choose wisely. By the way, they wouldn't have one member guilds. I don't mind doing what leadership asks. I'm sure there are other players who feel the same way. If I decide I don't want to follow a rule, I leave. I didn't start the guild. I can go to a guild I can agree with.

 

[DeletedUser]

Alright, most of the 68 pages of this thread is arguing about guild controls and/or more detailed logs. Please restrict any further posting on this thread to NEW feedback on Guild BattleGrounds. Any more arguing over guild controls and/or logs will be deleted, as will any posts addressing/insulting/attacking players instead of addressing the topic.

 

[DeletedUser30312]

What I see are guilds who don't really want to adapt to GBG's emergent gameplay and want to force it to play the way they want. Unfortunately for them, there are guilds that have learned how to play GBG to their advantage.

In the two guilds where I actively do any serious GBG, we have an ongoing guild conversation where the guild leaders point out which provinces to concentrate on over the next few hours, and neither guild seems to have any trouble following along. In my main guild, we don't have a problem with members planting flags all over the map, but then it is a relatively smaller guild too. The other guild is larger, but generally people seem to be following the guild's leadership. In both cases, it may very well be that the guild members understand that working together is better for everyone in the guild over the long run.

 

[DeletedUser38714]

One thing that has really bothered me with statue of honor is that it uses the same three goods with a shield symbol used by atom, obs, and arc to show the amount of goods it gives, however it doesn’t function the same way. If your atom, obs, arc is at the level of +20 goods it gives says 20 goods and giving 20 of each. However, an SoH saving 20 goods gives 20 total or 4 of each. Either they should be different symbols or the wording should be changed because they don’t function the same way.